Patrick Wintour writes:

The Iranian government has belittled the scale and effectiveness of the Israeli attack on its military sites, but hardliners in the parliament insisted the strikes breached Iranian red lines and required a swift response, preferably at a time when Israel is already enmeshed in Lebanon and Gaza.

The internal Iranian debate on how to respond to the long-awaited Israeli attack turns on whether to treat Israel’s breach of Iranian national sovereignty as too grave to be ignored, or instead to heed the advice coming from the region and from the US to acknowledge the relatively limited nature of the attack and to step back from the brink by not launching reprisals.

In making its decision, the Iranian political elite will have to weigh conflicting political, diplomatic and military pressures. But the initial tone from the government was one of patriotic pride at the performance of the air defences, rather than calls for immediate retribution. Some even claimed that the air defences proved better than Israel’s Iron Dome.

In what amounted to a holding statement, the foreign ministry condemned the attack, adding: “Iran feels entitled and obliged to defend itself against foreign acts of aggression.”

The Iranian government spokesperson, Fatemeh Mohajerani, said that “only limited damage has been done”, and that the pride of Iranians had been strengthened by their response to the attacks.

But an internal political debate has already started on how to respond which is likely to replicate differences inside the political elite that have been evident ever since Iran surprisingly elected the reformist Masoud Pezeshkian as president, partly on a ticket to improve relations with the west. [Continue reading…]